Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

User1249x wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 9:39 pm

JamesTheGiant wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 9:31 pm No, you don't understand the sutta properly.

How would you know if i understand the Sutta properly or not, i have hardly commented on it. I just compared your statement to the sutta and pointed out a contradiction.

I have gotten to a proper keyboard now, so I can type faster instead of pecking out letters on a tiny screen.

...qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them."

So, this is not a precise analogy or metaphor, but think of it like a stream of water flowing from a tap or hose. Or a waterfall, whatever. There is a top, a middle, and a bottom to the flow. Those top middle bottom parts are conjoined, not disjointed, because if you separate them out, they lose the meaning of top middle and bottom. They exist dependent on the other parts.
Or a wheel. There's a top, a bottom, and a side part. But if you cut it apart, those parts lose their meaning.
This isn't an exact analogy. I can't think of a precise example... hmm.
Anyway, those qualities arise one after the other, dependent on the one before, and if we disjoint them, separately they cannot exist.
But we can point to them as a process, and say this part is this, and that part is that.
I wish I could findd a better example, because this water or wheel one isn't right. But do you see what I'm getting at?

I apologise for my "Can't be bothered" words before.. I was hungry and impatient.

JamesTheGiant wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 9:54 pm So, this is not a precise analogy or metaphor, but think of it like a stream of water flowing from a tap or hose. Or a waterfall, whatever. There is a top, a middle, and a bottom to the flow. Those top middle bottom parts are conjoined, not disjointed, because if you separate them out, they lose the meaning of top middle and bottom. They exist dependent on the other parts.
Or a wheel. There's a top, a bottom, and a side part. But if you cut it apart, those parts lose their meaning.
This isn't an exact analogy. I can't think of a precise example... hmm.
Anyway, those qualities arise one after the other, dependent on the one before, and if we disjoint them, separately they cannot exist.
But we can point to them as a process, and say this part is this, and that part is that.
I wish I could findd a better example, because this water or wheel one isn't right. But do you see what I'm getting at?

I apologise for my "Can't be bothered" words before.. I was hungry and impatient.

I understand what you are saying about the water and the wheel but it does not really change anything. It also does not apply to this part of the Sutta;

For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes.

because if you make delineation of a whole (a stream of water or a wheel) into section "a", "b" and "c", section a) is not section b) by definition etc.

althought they cannot be separated and delineated, the 5 khandas exist as a process, a spectrum.

you might want to paraphrase it instead

Let's see ,


"Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them."



1.
They are conjoined therefore not separated .
You can't Mark the difference between them right ?
But then How do you name it feeling perception Cognition ?


At the sense door ,
contact (sense media vs sense object) ,
arises sense consciousness .

2.
Do you feel something first ?
Or do you perceive first ?
Or there is a feeling first then intending , thereafter perceiving ?

Or
feeling perceiving intention arisen all together ?

Take for example .

The eyes looks at the ocean ,
arises eyes consciousness .
Is there a feeling of vastness first?
Then perceiving something extraordinary ?
Then intention to meditate for a while ?

James Tan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 2:33 pm Does the sequence after contact is feeling intention perceiving ? Or feeling perceiving intention ?

I don't think the order is significant here. These are just aspects of how we process and react to stimuli.

mikenz66 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:58 pm

JohnK wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:10 pm For me, a lot of contact is neither unpleasant nor pleasant UNTIL I perceive "what it is.")

It may be interesting to investigate that. I think this is often the case, but occasionally, especially on retreat, I am able to sense the "pleasant/unpleasant" aspect of objects before recognising them. This usually happens when simply waking, not paying particular attention to specific objects. For example in a garden, rather than the sequence of: "oh a flower", "how nice", sometimes it seems to go: "nice", "oh a flower"...


Mike

Yes, I know what you mean. I think of vedana ( feeling ) as my "instinctive" reaction to stimuli.